Fred,
My post 7693 was written in haste, and as a result I got ahead of
myself. The last line of the post should instead read: "So far as I can
see, one cannot simultaneously and coherently maintain these assumptions
and the statements you make here. What am I missing?"
To restate the main points succinctly:
I don't yet see how it is possible to assert M, C, V, m and L as
independent exogenously given magnitudes under the analytical conditions
established by Marx in K.I., and thus how it is possible to assert that
total prices P and aggregate surplus value S are "yielded" as dependent
magnitudes by these parameters. Specifically, so far as I can see, given
the magnitude of M, the data required to determine individual commodity
labor values, and the assumption that all commodities exchange at their
respective values, then m, C, V, L, P, and S are already completely
determined. Again as I understand what Marx wrote, to assert otherwise
suggests either that labor values are not in fact determined by socially
necessary labor time, or that C is not determined by average input
requirements, constant capital input prices (assumed by Marx to be
proportional to respective commodity values), and total output; or that V
is not determined by average labor input requirements, the wage rate
(assumed by Marx to be proportional to the value of labor power), and total
output; or that the total levels of C and V (and thus output and L) that
can be financed are independent of the initial quantity of money capital
advanced; or something else that at this point appears to be equally
puzzling and contrary to Marx's formulations.
As a separate comment, I don't yet see how m is defined in the case of fiat
money, since in that scenario the value of money is presumably equal to 0,
and thus the inverse of the value of money is undefined.
As a reflection of the above, it's not clear to me how the Sraffian
framework is *fundamentally* different from Marx's or yours; rather it just
makes certain necessary relationships explicit where Marx often leaves them
implicit, without evidently (at least to me) denying that they must hold.
Gil